I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice. And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already. I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like.

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital.

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio?

You do realize that Ansel Adams was the guy who went to almost crazy lengths to get the right sort of film and would spend endless hours in the lab to extend and manipulate DR as best as he could and was not just an artist but about as interest in the tech side too as you could get and that he was interested in the tech side not just for tech alone but also because of the practical implications for his real world shooting....

And it actually is nice to be able to rescue a blown shot if need be no? But also keep in mind, that it is only a little bit about that, mostly people are talking about wanting more DR while at the same time exposing as they had hoped for the scene....

Yes, but Ansel Adams would have gotten his exposure correct (Not 10 stops underexposed) and processed for DR. He also used filters to achieve the DR he wanted, and not solely on his film to capture all the range he needed.

Everyone knows the nikon sensor has more DR, but its not like the canon sensors are as bad as other make them to be. IE: the 7D file I posted earlier.

Michael tests show noise like I've never seen before in my canon cameras, which makes me question the validity of the said persons tests & creditials.

1. Do you understand the concept of what a demonstration is?2. Do you understand that you can have the exact same problem when you expose something so that the bright parts are exposed as far to the right as can be?3. Plenty of others have seen noise like that at times. If you don't trust him then what about the Fred Miranda tests???

your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier

Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's.

1. He would have if he was trying to show a quick, simple demonstration of the difference between two film stocks.2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???

What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?

Without sorting through this entire mess of a thread...

* Exmor sensors do have more DR, and it can be useful.

finally

Quote

* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

false

Quote

* Canon sensors are not as limited as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.

They are not limited overall and can do great with many scenes, as almost all of us have said, but they are that much more limited at lower ISOs in higher DR scenes. For some that won't matter ever, for some only super rarely, for some from time to time, for some a fair amount, for some often. It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

Quote

* The impact on one's photography is simply not as great as claimed by Exmor fans.

Most of us have been saying it depends. YOu can take a nearly infinite # of photos were it won't matter at all or much. OTOH it's easy to find shots where it could help a lot too.It's not the end of the world by any remote means but it is, real world, a lot nicer of a thing to have than many of the pure fanboys try to make it sound too.

Quote

* The number of posts on this topic have far exceeded reason.

Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.

Quote

Quote

Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?

Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).

1. Most of us have said to ignore their overall scores and look at their charts and plenty try to pick apart and bash their charts.2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

Quote

Quote

Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???

Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

Quote

Quote

But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.

Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.

really so I could have fit every high DR shot, that could not be done by fps or tripod work etc. if only I had freed my mind to possibilities and sang some songs?

Quote

Quote

I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).

What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?

[/quote]

Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.

your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier

Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's.

NOPE but a Pentax guy shows it is possible to do it with a Sony sensor and get a fair results by doing that

You missed the point, don't miss your exposure.

I already demonstrated from a measly 7D+10-22mm combo when properly exposed and processed, the photo is great and printable at full-res 300 DPI.

I could do the same on a 3 MP D30, I could do it on a 4X5 view camera, I could do it on my Yashica MAt-124G. Thats because

I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!

How many times do people have to say it's not about getting the exposure right! What if the scene, with bright parts not clipped off, does not fit above the noise floor? Then you get something exposed as ideally as possible that still won't work out so well unless various filters, multiple frames are possible and work out for the scene, sometimes that stuff works and sometimes not.

2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???

Zactly!

Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability. Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push. I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

If someone has one of these contentious bodies that doesn't mar their raw files with excessive pattern noise then lucky for them. We can't all try 5 or 6 of something to find a good one, shopkeepers will show us the door and tell us to never darken it again.

I, for one, will not buy another Canon SLR until they fix this problem so their raw files have at least as low a FPN as the old Nikon D90, preferably better.

2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???

Zactly!

Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability. Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push. I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

If someone has one of these contentious bodies that doesn't mar their raw files with excessive pattern noise then lucky for them. We can't all try 5 or 6 of something to find a good one, shopkeepers will show us the door and tell us to never darken it again.

I, for one, will not buy another Canon SLR until they fix this problem so their raw files have at least as low a FPN as the old Nikon D90, preferably better.

Yeah the 7D has a LOT of copy to copy variation, more than I've seen with any other model in it's vertical gain banding (that can show even in mid and light tones), most have a fair amount compared to other models but a god number have a real, real lot and a very few have very little.

No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.

You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it. If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize. The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.

* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

false

Oh, well, you used the word false, I guess the debate is over

Quote

It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.

Quote

Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.

DxO are not liars, just confused.

I don't recall people raving to this level when Canon had the lower noise/wider DR sensors. I suppose some did. There are Canon fanboys just like Nikon fanboys.

There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."

Quote

2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

When you repeat that without answering our critiques, you effectively tap out of the debate and concede the point.

Quote

Quote

Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

Source?

Quote

Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.

Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability. Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push. I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

Product variability is a real issue in any production run. If you saw this within your year warranty, the camera should have been shipped to Canon along with documentation of the problem (i.e. sample shots).

You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it.

Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.

Quote

If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize.

No, you need to perform the test and show us the results. That will put an end to this bickering.

Quote

The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.

I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.

I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.